It may well be due to the fact that I’ve now retired and don’t have to worry about “irate feelings” from a co-worker any longer … but I can’t believe that were I to have been in your situation when I first started, that I would feel any different from what I feel today. What you’re describing is happening more and more throughout the airline business around the world … and quite frankly, I am of the opinion that its only due to the fact that most of those finding themselves in those positions are more interested in protecting their own “6” than in doing “the right thing.”

Yes … I’m fully prepared to acknowledge that this might sound unceremoniously condescending … sorry about that … but it’s the truth, nonetheless.

Flight training has become something that everyone must endure to get to “the line,” where money is made, fun is had, and personal integrity is advertised –and recognized– by –and only by- the number of stripes on the jacket and the number of hours in the log book. Well … that’s hogwash … pure and simple. I’ve commented on similar subjects previously … and the majority of any ‘change’ I’ve seen over the years, is to encounter such idiocy more and more frequently. Flight training is a terribly important aspect to safety of flight … and I include in this both ‘initial’ AND ‘recurrent’ training. Training is where a (student) pilot is provided the opportunity to learn, assimilate, and eventually USE everything that has been taught – and through that, becomes more and more able to see, feel, and/or sense what the airplane is doing ALL of the time … and based on that recognition, is able to apply the appropriate control to maintain or adjust (and incredibly more important - to RE-gain - if necessary) the desired condition of the airplane … and I use the term ‘condition’ to mean the aircraft attitude, altitude, speed (in the air or on the ground), and direction … including any progressing change to any/all of those aspects. After all … this IS the process that each of us, as pilots, are supposedly trained to do.

When there is a problem in recognizing an established condition or in making desired adjustments to modify (or maintain) that condition – is when aircraft control is on the brink of being lost. Every time the pilot flying desires to make a change to one or more of these ‘condition’ aspects, he/she must have a distinct understanding of exactly what must be done and how that result has been, or is being, accomplished.
I almost hate to acknowledge it, but it appears that flight instructors are becoming (at least in part) “…agents to acquire a passing score.” I probably don’t need to say it … BUT … THAT is NOT the role of a flight instructor! Not every person through the ‘applicant door’ with the minimum hours in a log book are guaranteed to become the kind of proficient pilot that each airplane/airline demands and deserves – but that doesn’t change that basic requirement.

The issue about which I have been pounding tables, figuratively perhaps but regularly nonetheless, throughout my career, has been specifically focused on simulation that could and would be authorized for training and/or evaluation of pilots … stressing that each specific device should be designed, built, tested, and authorized for use for training and/or for evaluation of required tasks when each simulator is found to be appropriately capable. This kind of approach would yield a range of such devices … with lesser technically capable devices used for tasks applicable to the lesser levels of certificates, and the most technically capable devices for tasks applicable to the most advanced levels of certificates. At least equally important, perhaps more so, are requirements that I have regularly included in my critiques, my criticisms, and my recommendations. Those are the following:
1. each ‘simulation device’ must meet diligently defined criteria;
2. the instructors and evaluators must be provided, and must satisfactorily complete, a specifically defined course of training applicable for each device they are authorized to use;
4. the training must consist of both initial and recurrent formats including the specific capabilities and limitations for each device they may use; and
5. Should some aspect of a simulation device change, each instructor and evaluator must be trained on that changed aspect.

I fully realize that there are those out there who would, given the opportunity and bank account, always do “the right thing” regarding training. However, that “bank account” issue is ever-present, and if money can be saved more-so by doing one thing than can be saved by doing another thing … given the option, the greater savings is likely to get the nod. With my having worked on the development of more than a few regulations, I have come to recognize essentially three (3) things:
1. Unless whatever additional training is required by regulation … particularly if it costs money (and invariably it will cost) … whatever “it” happens to be will likely not be incorporated. However, if there are very evident benefits that will accrue with “its” being adopted and put into practice, “it” may be incorporated without a requirement to do so. It would be wonderful if all additional regulations would save money … but, the fact is, we function in the real world.
2. Despite its importance, the safety features of a proposed regulation are not always the aspect that is focused on by those having to incorporate that regulation into their daily operations.
3. When it comes to establishing a regulation, it has been my experience that asking those who will have to ultimately comply with that regulation to be integrally involved in the development of that regulation has produced more effective, realistic, and worthwhile regulations, that are also structured such that the cost is minimized to the greatest extent.
In my opinion, one of the glaring absences is the requirement for instructors and evaluators to be trained, initially and recurrently, on the specific capabilities, the short-comings, and the level of realism offered by each of the individual simulators they will use in the conduct of the training or evaluation they will conduct. Not all simulators for a given airplane type, even those manufactured by the same company and sold to the same specific operation (airline or training center) will necessarily have the identical characteristics, have identical idiosyncrasies, “feel” the same, perform the same, etc. Each simulator is a ‘different creature,’ and each one must be understood, treated, and relied upon accordingly.

Clearly there are few professionals in the aviation business who do not believe that he or she has a good grasp of what is and what is not the most important aspect to a particular function or feature and how that particular aspect should be addressed. However, one of the things I’ve come to understand is that all kinds of ideas, concerns, and cautions have merit (some considerably so) and sometimes, those other ideas, methods, and/or suggestions are often superior to what was originally considered. Simply, it is verifiably true that hearing such comments and having them explained from the perspective of the person making those comments, or suggesting other methods, or posing concerns for how something may be interpreted or incorporated that may ultimately influence the overall result negatively, more often than not, provides a more thorough and thoughtful consideration, allows a better worded and a better described, more readily accepted, and therefore, more viable and productive regulation than could have been imagined by any particular party on their own.

As of now, in the US at least, for all intents and purposes, the only regulatory requirement for a specific “recurrent training” curriculum is found in airline training programs, and I believe it is logical to have at least some kind of similar requirement for all grades of pilot certificates and piloting operations. As we all know, airlines openly advertise their ability to provide transportation services from point to point for a fee … and a private pilot would not generally be in a position to negatively impact the lives or well-being of those beyond his/her own family and friends. But even in those circumstances, those family members and friends are very likely trusting the regulator to have ensured that the pilot in whom they will be entrusting their well-being, has all the appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure their safety. Additionally, in both cases the flight involved very likely would over-fly unknown people and properties. Should an accident occur, those people and properties may be equally in jeopardy. Personally, I believe that should be understood. The question then, might be should there be at least some effort to ensure that the proficiency levels in both cases are at an acceptable level? Of course, that level should be commensurate with the original proficiency level required for the pilot certificate involved. There have often been attempts to include in the regulations some kind of recent-experience requirement … but, up to now, those efforts have been abandoned. Regardless of this fact, I believe that many, if not most, in this industry would acknowledge that there is likely to be at least some additional effort that might be considered to be beneficial in this regard.

Also, it is not my intent to trash or restrict, or make it awkward to participate in what is commonly known as ‘recreational flying’ – and I think we need to ensure that we do not advocate undue or unnecessary requirements that would significantly alter this area of the industry … but the question that inevitably arises is what is ‘undue’ and what is ‘unnecessary’ when it comes to pilot competency and capability. I don’t profess to have the ultimate answer – and it may be that any specific answer would have too many contingencies or require too many alternatives to be able to be clearly understood … but that potential should NOT deter professionals from making an attempt to do the right thing.